Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against JAJA FINANCE LTD

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W paid approximately £2,500 via a JAJA credit card for business services but did not receive the full services promised. He requested a refund and later a Section 75 claim, which JAJA declined based on a contractual term excluding liability for business costs or losses. Mr W complained to the FOS, eventually indicating willingness to accept a partial refund of around £900. The ombudsman found that JAJA acted fairly in declining the claim and was entitled to rely on its contractual defence, noting that the ultimate success of such a defence is a matter for the courts rather than the ombudsman to determine.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that JAJA was entitled to defend against the Section 75 claim based on the explicit contractual term restricting business use and excluding liability for business losses. While a DCS agreement could not be clearly established due to missing documentation and name mismatches, this was not determinative. The ombudsman concluded that JAJA did not act unfairly in relying on its contractual defence, and that it is not the ombudsman's role to prevent a firm from making legal arguments that should be resolved through court proceedings. The ombudsman also found that a chargeback was unlikely to succeed given that Mr W received some services.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website